Cimarron29414

The fact that you would make this observation:

followed by this declarative:

drive home how true THIS statement is:

You are "these people"....since you asked.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

While I believe there is intel that suggests Iran is further along than you imply, I won't debate that point, because it will muddy the water.

I have a couple of honest questions. If these need to move to another thread, someone just say so:

Do you believe that Iran will sell a nuclear device to a terrorist organization as soon as it has several (many) warheads of its own?

Do you believe Iran can reliably maintain possession of all of their nuclear fuel, even in the event of a government overthrow?

Personally, I believe "yes" and "no".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

so an "elite" is anyone you can't win an argument against. and they're all evil, those people who can't win arguments against. and that's how it goes.

well thanks for clearing that one up, cimarron. it sure has been fun interacting with you, as it always is. i learn alot from each and every one of your fine posts.

i'd say something off-handedly sarcastic here but i'm not really in the mood to read a post later that's either all rending of garments and casting of ashes or that blames me for the demise of the entire board. and america in general. or whatever.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dippin

There is a difference between elite and elitist. Millionaires are the economic elite regardless of how they feel about the poor. Candidates in national tickets are political elites regardless of how they feel about the disenfranchised. Contributors in the most watched news channel with spots on prime time are media elites regardless of how they feel about the viewers.

She might not be an "elitist," but she is, without a doubt, "elite."

Cimarron29414

Winning an argument against you is such an absurd notion. It would require you to entertain the fact that you might be wrong. Something tells me you work in academia.

The fact that you use "teabaggers" as an intentional demeaning of their movement in order to dismiss it outright rather than engage in debate of the core merits...well, that's why it's "elitist" - you further my case.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

I would agree with you on that. I didn't realize that was the context. They were becoming intertwined in the thread.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

But roachboy IS right.

How can a movement that openly supports the exclusion of the less informed from voting rolls through a number of tests, the reduction or elimination of assistance programs to the poor, and supports a flat tax that would have a net impact of increasing taxes on the poor and reducing them on the rich have the gall to call anyone elitist? Eliminating those perceived to be less educated from voting rolls and reducing taxes on those considered to be more worthy or superior is the basis of the definition of elitism.

I mean, the definition of elitism is :
1.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.

1.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2.

Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.


"Elitist," in the context of the public voices of the tea partiers (again, Im not talking about the grassroots level, just the visible voices), refers to people who make complex arguments that stray from a simplistic world view.

dc_dux

The Tea Party movement which actually grew out of Ron Paul's support base was worthy of discussion.

When it was co-opted by the social/religious extremists with their "Obama is a Socialist/Fascist/Muslim extremist/Anti-American" nonsense and hate filled rhetoric and signs....they became Tea Baggers to me and worthy of ridicule, not serious discussion.

The irony is that Ron Paul is now facing tea bagger primary opposition. (link)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cimarron29414

I have not been to any tea party events in 8 months. I condemn the birthers, the racists, and such that have somehow found a means to be heard. It is their presence which has me avoiding events.

However, fact is, the "teabaggers" label existed long before these nutjobs were allowed to speak at such a big event. The term was used from the get-go and is perpetuated in order to invalidate the "worthy base of discussion." It is to this point, I stand my ground.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

The "war card" is simply letting Iran know that war is an option. Playing the war card, may be premature at this point, but Iran is entrenched in a pattern of defiance. the question is, what do we (all nations concerned) do about it?

I want Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons research and development.

My view of negotiations is that you have to have leverage. I don't "rush" to use the leverage, but it is important for all parties to know what the leverage is in order to come to a "win-win" solution.

What security clearance do you have? How do you know? If you do know, why would you post the information here?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rahl

[quote=aceventura3;2757126]


I want Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons research and development.


QUOTE]


What right do you have to demand they stop. Would you come to my house and tell me that I can't have any firearms?

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------


The same question applies to you, and all those who think Iran is developing Nuclear weapons.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

it's ironic what a delicate flower you now pretend to be, cimarron.
so wounded and outraged by the arrows of fortune.

so what exactly was the tea party "movement" **for** initially? you know, before it got co-opted by the various forces of Evil.
i know what it was against.

so let's see.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

Dude, I'm not wounded. You are completely missing my point. For the last few months, every time you pop into a thread to contribute, your post will ALWAYS include some disparagement about conservatives. You will extrapolate a single statement made by a single person across ALL conservatives. This is new to you, and I don't know why you feel the need. It stifles the conversation. It places people into defensive mode - not wounded or victimized, just pissed off that they can't get a word in without some disparagement. Rather than exchanging ideas and letting those ideas bear out who has a better argument, it slams the door on constructive debate. If your position on Obama vs. Hoover is, "Obama is not Hoover and this is why...." then say it. Instead, you start with, "GOOOD LOOORD! There is no end to what conservatives will concoct in their surreal blah blah blah." Conservatives didn't suggest that, Ace did. But you still picked the fight. I would have sided with all of you on that debate, but instead I got lumped with the other side unjustly.

So, just think about. You're going to do what you want to do, but at least consider that picking a fight every time might be interfering with the threads.

As for what the TEA party is *for*, I would say that the most widely heard views at rallies were:

A balanced budget amendment.
Fund it, then spend it - not the other way around.
Fair taxation (admittedly broad).
A simplification of the income tax code.
An end to unrelated earmarks on bills and an end pork projects
Term Limit Amendment for Congress

Now, I ask you. Do those things make us horrible people? Are any of those things outrageous?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

so what you want to do is debate my rhetorical approach? you're joking, right?

ok so i'll bite to a limited extent: most conservative argumentation--you know, the stuff that circulates through what was not so long ago a conservative media apparatus the boundaries of which blurred into mainstream political discourse, but which is now (fortunately in my view) collapsed in its influence (if not its funding) back onto the paleo-right for which it speaks---most conservative argumentation that originates from within this media-scape operates by attempting to control the framework of a conversation. which makes it a monologue, but whatever. that's how the political argumentation operates--you assert a set of assumptions and then advance a sequence of relatively banal points (more often than not) which presuppose acceptance of the framework. silly stuff like markets are rational. silly stuff like state action is by definition a source of distortion. silly stuff like the distribution of wealth under capitalism can be equated with some kind of moral economy.

you know the drill. it's been the dominant political discourse for a very long time.

so when ace from time to time a claim or a thread gets launches that operates in this kind of way---the latest example being the "will obama be the next herbert hoover" thread---it seems entirely reasonable to go after the assumptions or the framework that enable such a claim to appear to make sense. particularly when those assumptions or that frame is the conservative talking point of the day or week.

for example.

and that's just the way it is. i didn't make the political landscape the way it's been. lots of very deep pockets have funded the creation of a really stupid but quite efficient conservative repetition machine (if you like---it's shorthand)....and it was effective for a while, particularly during the rather dismal period right after 9/11/2001...but that's another matter.



i'm at work at the moment so have limited time to dip in and out of these things...like now i have a meeting. sorry.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

~sigh~

This isn't working out. That was my last, best attempt at trying to repair some sort of causeway where we could exchange positions without the venom.

It's not you, it's me. If we pass in the hallways, I promise I will be polite and say hi. You can keep the CDs I loaned you.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

Cimarron,

I'm sure that everyone knows that when someone says "conservative," they are not referring to every single person who defines him or her self as a conservative.

And I don't see the need to get defensive when someone says "conservatives this or that." That is, I don't see the need to join in and defend the conservatives who do say this or that. As a mirror to that, people on the left side of the political spectrum have also had to deal with certain generalizations, like "Obama the messiah," "Obama the socialist," "Obama the far leftist who is controlled by the radical left." No one suddenly started defending those positions because they were thrown in with the lot. Instead, for the most part, people have challenged those generalizations when they were false.

I have no illusions that the democrats are the "left," so when they are criticized my reaction is not to get defensive over democrats. Whenever I do "defend" democrats, is merely as a way of pointing that there is a huge distance between what the democrats stand for and a true left wing position. Like in this thread: my point in attacking the comparison was not to shield Obama from criticism, but to point out that neither Obama nor Hoover can be thought of as "too interventionist" and that it wasn't interventionism that created either economic crisis.


Regarding "Obama the next Hoover:" it wasn't just Ace who said it. It is a theme that has been repeated by key figures within not only the republican party, but the conservative media apparatus. Now, you may not think that they are true conservatives, and you may not care for them, but we are talking about people who are greatly admired and followed by most people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Sure, we could use "Limbaugh conservatives" instead of "conservatives," but I don't see the use, and I don't see the reason why not doing so should stifle debate.

aceventura3

Wow. I wish I could find the words to answer this question without coming across as a total a$$. But at the risk of not being understood, I will simply say that "might makes right" - this is the way of the world from the dawn of time, like it or not.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 PM ----------

I assume they lie.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Why no mention of North Korea?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

So if you are "mightier" than me, it's ok for you to come to my house and tell me I can't have my guns?


And when no evidence is found that they have Nukes, you simply assume the evidence is wrong? You simply have a "hunch" they really do? Ace...you wouldn't happen to be a certain ex-president when not in cyber world would you?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

I think Iran is a bigger threat to world stability. Conflict in the ME can easily lead to a world war in my opinion. I think North Korea can be isolated much easier. I also believe that if we can follow through with Bush's plan regarding the ME we can see generations of world peace. The key is in representative governments. I fear if we take our eye of off that goal we are all at risk. If the rest of the world is unified with Iran, North Korea will get the message.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

Like I wrote, I knew I would be misunderstood. But, in direct answer to your question, yes. That is how it works. If I can garner the support of superior force ( the law, police, military, mobs, etc), I can force you to my will. The opposite is true as well.

The thing is though, I respect freedom as do most Americans. If you let me live in peace and freedom, I have no issue with you - most Americans are the same way. In addition at some point I will perceive your actions to restrict the freedom of others as a threat to my freedom. If my neighbor is not free, nor am I. So, I would use force to protect freedom, even if it is not mine. Wouldn't you?


I don't trust them, so yes - I would assume the evidence is wrong.

Yes.

Are you suggesting you have no doubts? On a scal of 1 to 10 with 10 being absoluttly no trust, I give the people running Iran a 10. Do you give them a 1? Or, are you at 5+, meaning you are closer to my view than you probably realized.
I know what I am, and I have tried explaining it in the past. I am the guy who has to be talked down, I am the guy who takes action first and asks questions later. Fortunately I know who I am, when I get those urges, I let cooler heads take the lead. If I were President, and asked for the authority to use force, assume I would use it, don't give it to me until you are ready. My promise has always been to be honest, so just as Bush said what he was going to do, I would as well. The problem is when a person like me is dealing with people who don't really communicate directly saying what they mean. If the guy in Iran says he wants me wiped off the face of the earth, I assume he means it, and I act accordingly. I don't assume he was joking, negotiating, using hyperbole or whatever.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rahl

I guess the difference is that I base my actions/decisions on the facts at hand. And those facts say they don't have the weapons. But even if they did, I have no right to tell them they can't. Only when it is clear that an attack is IMMINENT(sp?) would I take a pre-emptive action.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Baraka_Guru

Assuming Palin is all hawkish on Iran, and assuming she meant what she said when Israeli settlers should be allowed to expand their settlements on Palestinian territory, how is this in any way conducive to world stability and Bush's plan regarding peace in the Middle East?

And then we have North Korea. What message would they receive if the world isn't unified with Iran (which would likely be the case)? If anything, using the war option (i.e. an essentially American/Israeli-led option) against Iran would embolden North Korea to carry on with their own nuclear pursuits.

I don't see the value in Palin's positions. I only see the harm.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

girldetective

Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think it may be true.
Please do not forget who this woman is when she is all schmoozy and perky.

She is very, very fucked up.
Please read the above again and again, and once more. I think is true.

__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

samcol

Well it's nice to see someone point out what this movement started as. It's unfortunate that it has become hijacked by the likes of beck, hannity, palin and the gop.

I enjoyed the tea party movement when it first began, but now it's just become the perverted talking points of the right wing heads.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

aceventura3

What facts are you talking about? All I think we have is speculation and what they say.


In general this is an interesting position you are taking with some implications that many would be very uncomfortable with. Basically, given your reasoning how would you justify any law governing behaviors that may put others at risk? How would you justify any non-voluntary requests by the UN?



Ask 100 people to define when an attack is "imminent" and I bet you won't find many who agree. Also, "preemptive" action doesn't necessarily mean using violence - and nov-violent action can be as devastating with the same consequences of violence, i.e., cutting off medicine, aid, food and water can cause many to die without a single shot fired.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rahl

The facts I'm talking about are that there are no weapons.

There is no law justifying us telling another country what they can or can't do.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

[quote=Baraka_Guru;2757324]Assuming Palin is all hawkish on Iran, and assuming she meant what she said when Israeli settlers should be allowed to expand their settlements on Palestinian territory, how is this in any way conducive to world stability and Bush's plan regarding peace in the Middle East?

Given current conditions, I don't think it would be. Not only Palin, but I don't think most people understood the "Bush doctrine" or his strategic plan for the ME. Many people simply just dismissed the issues with slogans, like "Bush lied, people died", etc. I have no idea what Obama's plan is, which is much more important than what Palin thinks or even what Bush did at this point.


They will continue their acts of defience, develop nuclear weapons threatening their neighbors. Their neighbors will grow increasingly uncomfortable and an arms race will begin, one incident could then spark war.

Canada has participated in war, and I think Canada would be involved in any future ME conflict. I think they would also be involved in any world conflict with N. Korea. Canada is not a pacifist nation I do not understand how peace can be maintained without the acknowledgment that the use of force is an option. It is nice that some have the option of pretending war is not an option, but others do have to carry that burden and make those decisions when or if the time comes.

Palin is a private citizen with an opinion. Obama is our elected President, he needs to clearly communicate his position to the world, I don't think he has done that, giving people like Palin opportunities to attack his lack of clarity.

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Some of the world's greatest people came to greatness from humble roots. What is your point?

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

Isn't that your opinion?

Perhaps, we are in a semantics trap, but I think I disagree with you.

International law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Don't misunderstand Canada's typical role in war or the use of its armed forces. We are not a nation that would easily support the commitment of troops and hardware to a preemptive strike or much else outside of a United Nations resolution. We have a long history of missions based primarily on peacekeeping, security, and rebuilding. In rare cases where we've taken an active role in offensive missions, it was mainly due to an already dire situation, rather than forcing someone to bend to one's political will.

Yes, Canadians have gone to war and they will continue to do so, but the pretenses under which they do it are not exactly as they are in the U.S.

That said, there is a difference between keeping war as an option and preferring it as one.

First, it isn't always in the best interest for an American president to constantly lay his cards on the global table when it comes to international relations. Second, it has become apparent that Obama wants to place economic sanctions on Iran in light of recent events regarding their nuclear program...even if it means circumventing the U.N. I don't think Obama is obscure about his view of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Palin, on the other hand, though a private citizen, is also a former politician and an influential political commentator. In addition, she has hinted that she might want to run for the country's highest office. Her opinions matter.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

Nope, it's a verifiable fact. They have enriched uranium to 20%. That's not weapons grade. It is being used the the civil engineers for medical isotopes.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ratbastid

Yeah, when it comes to war, Canada prefers to stay oat of it.

(Sorry! Sorry! I'll keep it in that other thread!)

Sirensong12

She's a moron. An evil moron, like Cheney, but a moron nonetheless.

The two should go hunting together. Soon. Please.

__________________
After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on - have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear - what remains? Nature remains.
Walt Whitman, US poet (1819 - 1892)

kutulu

I'm sorry but this statement is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. Please educate yourself on the usage of teleprompters and speechwriters before you spout ignorant things like this.

ratbastid

Here's the thing... If somebody had asked us, in the 70's, if America would ever elect a B-movie actor, we'd have laughed. But we did. Twice.

If somebody had asked in the 90's if we'd ever elect a known-stupid failed-businessman son of a former president, we'd have laughed. But we did. Twice.

Hell, if somebody had asked in the 00's if we'd ever elect a black man, a large percentage of us would have laughed. But we did.

We laugh at Sarah Palin at our own peril. I think there's a scary-high chance she could get elected, just looking at history.

aceventura3

I have never met a person or talked to a person who wanted to engage in a war. I am not sure how to clarify the difference between willingness to engage in war compared to "want", but there is a difference.

It is interesting how people use the concept of sanctions. In some ways a sanction could be considered an act of war. In some ways the consequences of sanctions could have a higher toll on human life and suffering than a swift, decisive use of the military. Sanctions are certainly preemptive.

Her opinions don't matter, she has near zero influence as an individual on our national policy. To the degree that there is a "movement" that she leads, which she does not, she could have influence but that requires millions of people who hold the same view. Even then that impact can be delayed until elections.

The left's obsession with Palin or their fear of her is humorous to me. Palin does not influence my views, on many issues she is simply in sync with my views, again there is a difference that some don't see or understand.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rahl

Her opinions do matter. People listen to her, why I don't know, but they listen. Why do you think she is parading around the country endorsing canidates?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

If you say so.

What about their research and plans to develop nuclear weapons? Is it a "fact" that they are not doing that?

Is it a fact that Ahmadinejad want to wipe certain groups of people off of the face of the earth? Is it a fact that some want to pretend that is not a direct threat to all of humanity?

Consider these rhetorical questions, my views will not change, I doubt yours will either. I will never trust the current leadership in Iran, absolutely never. Did I say 100% in a thousand lifetimes never, ever, ever trust..., just to be clear.

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Miss the point. Can you give an example how she could influence anything this nation does right now, as a private citizen?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

Campaign for people during the midterm elections

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

rahl

I don't say so, the UN says so. They are violating the NPT for delayed compliance to meet their safeguards obligation, not for building nuclear bombs.

There is no evidence to suggest they are building a nuclear bomb. I know you hate it when facts get in the way, but you can't ignore them...well maybe YOU can.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

^^what he said, as well as continue to fear monger over Iran.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Willravel

Palin may have hijacked the Tea Party, but it appears Iran has hijacked this thread.

Cimarron29414

I don't really follow this, so I did a google search. It seems there's some dispute as to whether Iran is building a trigger for a nuclear bomb.

BBC News - Ahmadinejad denies Iran nuclear bomb trigger tests

It requires me to believe their president in order to agree with you that they have no plans to a nuclear weapons program. I don't know that I can make that stretch, since they already lied about the secret nuclear site.

I don't have much to add other than the contents of this article.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

You think with a 30% or 40% approval rating she is going to cause swing voters to actually vote for a candidate they would not have voted for without her influence? And realize we are talking about a vote 9 months from now, for people who would not be in office until about a year from now, who may or may not do what she wants them to do once in office.

If we started a list we would start with perhaps:
President
.
.
.
.
.
.
Governors
.
.
.
.
.
Oprah
.
.
.
.
.
CEO's of S&P 500 Companies
.
.
.
.
State elected officials
.
.
.
.
Simon Cowell
.
.
.
.
NCAA basketball refs.
.
.
.
Elected School Board members
.
.
.
.
IRS auditors
.
.
.
.
oh, I think I made my point.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

Poll finds most Americans are unhappy with government - washingtonpost.com

not sure if you need a subscription to the washington post to chase this link....just in case: it outlines the results of a new cbs/washington post poll. here's the results concerning sarah palin:

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite